Frank commentary from an unretired call girl

Born, Not Made

Men may change their climate, but they cannot change their nature. A man that goes out a fool cannot ride or sail himself into common sense. – Joseph Addison

The human character is the product of both heredity and environment, but much of the 20th century was spent arguing about which was the stronger. By the middle of the century most liberal thinkers outside of psychology (and many inside it) insisted that Nurture was stronger than Nature; to believe the opposite required an uncomfortable admission of our animal natures that many humans a century after Darwin still preferred to deny, and the Nurture-over-Nature folk failed to recognize that in denying humans have an innate nature which transcends socialization they were in fact espousing something far more demeaning to the human spirit. To recognize the pre-eminence of Nature over Nurture is to recognize that humans are animals, but to place Nurture over Nature is to believe we are machines to be programmed as society sees fit.

This idea of course appeals to social engineers because it feeds into their sick belief that society can and should be remade along whatever lines their “elite” leadership demands. The neofeminists are a perfect example; by pretending that all gender differences are “socially constructed”, they deny that most gendered behavior is innate and thereby clear the way for their plan to masculinize girls and feminize boys so as to artificially create a mechanistic eunuch-culture which can be ruled by one law. Luckily, these claims have in the past two decades fallen into disrepute; neurological discoveries, an increased understanding of endocrinology and cross-cultural and cross-species studies all show that when it comes to gender Nature is vastly stronger than Nurture. Except in the ghettos of “women’s studies” and “queer theory” it would be difficult to find any educated person with any knowledge of the subject who still believes that the majority of male or female behaviors derive from social learning rather than hormones and brain architecture.

This does not, of course, disprove that some behaviors we associate with one sex or the other result from socialization rather than birth. In fact, few educated people would be so dogmatic as to make the claim that ALL gendered behaviors derive from nature. I predict that the struggle over the next few decades will be to determine which are which; those with a unisex agenda will of course try to prove that as many behaviors as possible are learned, and social conservatives will try to prove the opposite, while serious researchers attempt to remain as scientifically detached as possible so as to learn the truth. Generally speaking, if a given behavior is linked to known hormonal, neurological or somatic mechanisms and is consistent across many cultures and primate species, it almost certainly derives from Nature, and if it has no known biological mechanism and appears inconsistently across cultures and species it very likely derives from Nurture.

Well, considering that a certain female behavior discussed frequently in this blog appears in every known human culture throughout history and also in chimpanzees, is it possible that it derives from Nature? In other words, could it be that whores are born rather than made? In her column of January 14th, Amanda Brooks suggests that this might indeed be the case:

Not every sex worker in the world enters the work because she has always felt a pull towards it. Many have. I know a number of women who have felt the interest from a young age, including myself (and this was before I even had a clear idea of what sex was). Conversations with these women reveal that we all say the same things about our early interest, we all became interested right before entering puberty and common myths about prostitution were not enough to dissuade us from desiring that life-path. This is a very small sampling and it’s highly unscientific. Given what we know about genes and hard-wired behaviors — it seems more than plausible. Just as homosexual people are born, I am convinced prostitutes are born too.

My inspiration came last year after reading a US-based survey about attitudes toward gay people. The discovery of “gay genes” seems to have really turned the tide in popular thinking and acceptance of homosexuality. It sounds like an argument of convenience for prostitution. But if the range of human sexual orientation is, in fact, genetic; then how come prostitution — an extremely common sexual behavior — supposedly isn’t? What if prostitution isn’t merely a sexual behavior but is actually a sexual orientation? Why has prostitution always been viewed as a deviant behavior? How come people aren’t willing to examine the idea that a prostitute is a perfectly natural occurrence and that it’s society which has formed the deviant behavior around the prostitute?

If being a prostitute is a natural tendency for a percentage of women, then how can laws be made against who they are?

It’s quite an interesting idea, and her column is well worth reading. The theory is of course the exact opposite of that espoused by neofeminists, who claim that all prostitutes are sexually and psychologically damaged victims who are warped into pursuing prostitution by sexual abuse. And just as they deny evidence of biological origin of sex-based behaviors, so they deny the possibility that most women choose prostitution freely. Those who deny any history of sexual abuse are claimed to be “in denial” or suffering from “repressed memories”; the neofeminist “theory” flies in the face of reality and so requires that reality be denied if it is to be believed. But Amanda’s theory requires no such denial; in fact it is supported by the case-histories of many working girls I have known, who feel no sense of shame or discomfort in our profession whatsoever and indeed were fascinated by the subject from a young age – often before we even knew what sex was. The theory certainly fits my story, which I related in my columns of July 28th, 29th and 30th. Could there really be a “hooker gene”? Only time and research will tell.

46 Responses

To recognize the pre-eminence of Nature over Nurture is to recognize that humans are animals, but to place Nurture over Nature is to believe we are machines to be programmed as society sees fit.

There is of course a middle ground: to recognize that we are animals who evolved the highest level of social adaptability in the animal realm. There are other species with cultural differences between groups (chimps and gorillas as examples), but humans certainly score higher than any other species in terms of social plasticity and adaptability. As far as I know, no other species has so many cultural (non-genetic) differences between groups as ours.

You are equating “social adaptability/plasticity” with “programmability.” There is a sense in which this is true (see D. Dennett, T. Deacon, D. Hofstadter), but you make it more ‘threatening’ than it is. (The idea of “education” is based on a certain level of “programmability” of humans; so is the idea of “culture”. “Programmability” is not necessarily bad.)

I predict that the struggle over the next few decades will be to determine which are which; those with a unisex agenda will of course try to prove that as many behaviors as possible are learned, and social conservatives will try to prove the opposite, while serious researchers attempt to remain as scientifically detached as possible so as to learn the truth.

That is probably true. It is a sad aspect of the human sciences that their study tends to be used to support this or that kind of social activism; this generates a series of accusations about biases and social agendas, some true and some false, kept burning by the passions of those involved. The ‘detached researchers’, of which there are indeed always some, end up getting a bad reputation with both groups… People trying to decide who is who and what is going on without knowing the field and its research methodologies will have a difficult time.

Personally, I am fascinated both by what is universal and by what is specific in culture and personality. Both the similarities and the differences say important and equally deep things about what it means to be human.

Conversations with these women reveal that we all say the same things about our early interest, we all became interested right before entering puberty and common myths about prostitution were not enough to dissuade us from desiring that life-path.

If the defining element of prostitution is sex for money, it is difficult to see how this could be an innate element — since there is nothing money-related that is innate in people. We’d have to enlarge a little bit the definition of prostitution here; perhaps some “sensitivity to male attraction” (plus the numinous elements that you mention in several posts, linking your interest to sacred and temple prostitution, old goddesses of sex and love, etc.).

After talking to you and reading many of your posts, I wondered about the kinds of personalities that might lead females to feel spontaneously attracted towards prostitution (i.e., leaving aside poverty, need, etc.), an idea that corresponds to Amanda’s concept of attraction-to-prostitution as a kind of sexual orientation (a ‘kink’ if you will). I find the possibility quite interesting.

One idea I had, from your descriptions of your sexuality, is that women who are more-than-average attracted by the “giving” part of sexuality (and in fact of all interpersonal behavior), rather than to the “taking” part, and who feel the satisfaction/power/connection that comes from “giving” (= connection to god(desses), religiosity, etc.), might find prositution more attractive than those who are more-than-average attracted by the “taking” part. That beautiful painting of the angel of consolation in your Madonna-and-Whore post, that image that actually touched and moved me so deeply; I think that image represents something important to this kind of personality.

(A very beautiful picture that is, by the way. Who painted it? I would love to find a higher-definition version that I could print out and hang somewhere in my office. I’m sure my wife would love it, too.)

If the defining element of prostitution is sex for money, it is difficult to see how this could be an innate element — since there is nothing money-related that is innate in people.

I disagree; you’re confusing money with currency. They’re not the same thing. Money in its most basic meaning is any limited resource used as a medium of exchange, which includes food and sex. It’s currency which is an artificial symbol for money and therefore not innate.

A very beautiful picture that is, by the way. Who painted it?

I’m not sure; I found it on the internet somewhere. But I completely agree, it’s a lovely picture. 🙂

Money is a good that has greater exchangeability than all others. Money gets offered for goods other than money. The only use of money is to enable us to get what we want. Money is a means to an end.

Currency is money (notes and coins) and all credit that has bearer negotiability. Currency is that which has the power of purchasing and resembles money, sometimes called money substitutes. In short, currency consists of money and revolving credit. Whatever represents transferable debt can become currency.

Money passes from one to another by reason of its bearer negotiability and so does some kinds of revolving credit and together, both amount to currency.

Bearer negotiability means the property (right of possession) in the economic quantity of sale and purchase (money or credit) gets passed along in every honest exchange, that is, no need exists to inquire as to the title of ownership in money and credit from anyone offering money or credit to buy a thing. Said another way, the property and thing are inseparable.

Thanks from me too, Mr MacDougal. I understand a bit better now the claims about prostitution in the animal realm that Amanda made in her original post. I suppose associating money with its latest incarnation is an easy logical jump, but a jump it is nonetheless. 🙂

“Amanda’s theory requires no such denial; in fact it is supported by the case-histories of many working girls I have known, who feel no sense of shame or discomfort in our profession whatsoever and indeed were fascinated by the subject from a young age- often before we even knew what sex was.”

A very interesting notion. Yes, it requires an expanded definition of prostitution, since money really hasn’t been around long enough to have much evolved around it. But a predisposition to engage in “hooker-like behavior?” I don’t know if it’s true, but I can’t think of any reason it couldn’t be.

From a rights point of view of course it’s utterly irrelevant whether whores are made or born. Just as it is interesting but (again, from the point of view of human rights) irrelevant whether people are born gay or choose to be gay. Even if it could be proven that homosexuality is a choice it would still be wrong to persecute them, just as it’s wrong to persecute Green Party members or Presbyterians or any number of other things that people choose to be.

I remember learning that all over the world, from the rain forest to the desert to the city to the farm, little girls play hand-clapping games. Bo Bo Se Otten Totten may not be universal, but the basic activity is. I was to taken with this that I even worked out a Thark version. (Tharks, for those who don’t know, are green Martians with four arms, which makes a hand-clapping game very interesting.)

From a rights point of view of course it’s utterly irrelevant whether whores are made or born.

Indeed, since there are things that are clearly made (e.g. religious orientation) and that we have always admitted are rights. But I think the point is that a lot of rhetorics is spent on how “no man or woman would ever want to be a prostitute in his/her right mind — if any does, s/he must have been brainwashed by patriarchy (‘self-identification with the oppressor’, ‘Stockholm syndrome’, etc.).’ Showing that there are other possibilities weakens such claims.

I’m not really convinced by this Theory, but I certainly agree that many prostitutes were fascinated by this occupation from early on. That was also the case with me. In discussions, often the “argument” is brought up that “no girl wishes to be a prostitute when she grows up”. Bollocks!

Sina, and how would you describe your fascination with this profession from early on? As something very internal, instinctive, fascinating, etc., or more like thinking it might be interesting, as when you decide which movie you’d rather watch? In other words, was your fascination very deeply felt, or more like a rational interest, like somone who likes to play chess?

I think some are born predisposed to it personally. Some people are born with an aversion to blood, others are not. In these cases there is no way the first would work in an ER yet the second one would. Perhaps the same could be said about sexual tendencies. We may not be born with a ‘hooker gene’ but on the other hand maybe there is something in the DNA makeup that gives us less inhibition, more sexually active, etc. Making this occupation less attractive to some and more attractive to others.

In steps the ‘nurture’ aspect… people who may be born ‘gay’ (whether that is scientifically proven or not) get nurtured into feeling that ‘gay is bad’ in which case we have extreme conflicting confusion. Same could be said for ladies with less bad feelings toward sex and then told that ‘sex is bad’.

Don’t know for sure, just what I believe personally. I do know that some women are natural for this and some are absolutely disgusted by it.

One idea I’ve heard in these discussions is that some women like being “objectified” (or “worshipped” — word choice does carry a worldview with it, doesn’t it?) whereas others don’t. There’s a part of enjoying sex in it, but there’s also a part of enjoying the effect one has on others. Some people (like e.g. Maggie here) make me think these two could be indepedent tendencies.

“Objectified” is one of the most asinine terms ever invented by feminists. It is based on the ridiculous pretense that the word “object” in the phrase “sex object” has the same meaning as in the phrase “inanimate object”, when in actuality its meaning is the same as in the phrase “object of my affection”. Sexual desire is transitive; it requires an object, so the only people who are never “sex objects” are those so repellent nobody ever wants them. 😦

Indeed, Maggie; which is why the use of this term in feminist discourse has always been confusing to me. In many situations it seemed as if they were talking in bad terms about a good thing.

I think they thought of “objectification” as a more ‘scientific’ word for what used to be called “disrespect”. It is possible to disrespect someone (say, a woman) with a stare, a look, a contemptuous smile. But it is possible to show respect with similar means. The bad thing is not in the means, it’s in the message, something so obvious I never understood how feminists managed to make a mess of it.

Or perhaps I do. It’s the old sex-is-bad, sex-is-wolf-killing-sheep-unless-it-is-redeemed-by-true-love perception. 😦

Oh, good grief, what modern American women need as a group is LESS respect, not more. Unearned respect results in nothing but becoming spoiled. If American women had to work for respect like everyone else in the world does this country would not be embroiled in this idiotic “gender war”.

As long as you GET what respect you have earned. A situation in which you have to work twice as hard to get half as much respect means that many won’t bother, and probably shouldn’t.

Actually, respect is my default position. I give a person a basic level of respect until that person proves that he deserves more, in which case he gets it, or that he doesn’t deserve it at all, in case I quit giving the basic level. I might continue to show basic courtesy if there is a reason to, as in the case of a man who is married to an aunt I love.

I’m not a raver, really, but PLUR is one of the best ideas I’ve heard in a long time.

I don’t mean exaggerated respect, or undeserved respect (like chivalry), Maggie. I agree with Sailor Barsoom on that: everybody, even women, deserves some modicum of respect. The point I was making is that I know “salacious, lewd stares” can be used disrespectfully, i.e. a man can do this precisely because he knows it bothers the woman in question (it’s the effect he wants to achieve). To think, however, that this is the situation every time a man lusts after a woman is, I think, a big mistake — it’s the same as confusing means and message. (It’s like thinking that laughs always mean contempt just because laughs can mean contempt — thereby excluding all situations in which someone laughs with us rather than at us.)

My point was also that the ‘wrongness’ that the concept of “objectification” was created to encapsulate can be conveyed more easily with the traditional term “disrespect.” The term “objectification” — in addition to, as you point out, being based on a misunderstanding of the meaning of the term “object” — is also, I think, simply unnecessary.

Ah, but what people deserve and what they need are two very different concepts. People don’t grow by getting only what they “deserve”; they grow by adapting to adversity. Being raped taught me more about the world than 500,000 guys pretending not to lust after me ever did. Does that mean I think everyone should be subjected to regular trauma? Of course not. But if the feminists got their way and magically produced a sanitized society in which nearly all men gave women the Candyland, sweetness-and-light fake “respect” they demand, most women would remain in a perpetual state of adolescence and never learn to deal with men as they are rather than as feminists would like them to be. I’d rather see men as they are, good and bad, and learn to live with that than to live in the fool’s paradise the feminists want to create; it’s the difference between growing up and remaining locked in a nursery forever.

I don’t see a contradiction here. The world is indeed not a paradise, and there are bad people out there who’ll make you suffer if they have a chance, and we all should learn to live in such a world because there really is no other. This doesn’t mean that believing other people deserve respect, or human rights, is wrong.

Feminists are indeed wrong for believing in the myth of a sweetness-and-light Candyland (a myth they didn’t invent — you can see its beginnings in 14th-century Minnesänger and troubadours — but which they did accept wholeheartedly, as did a number of other social activisms). But I think that’s not what I, or Sailor Barsoom, are talking about. Believing that others deserve respect from us (and ‘others’ include men, too, who often could use a little more respect) isn’t about Candyland, but rather about human dignity, human rights, and treating others as one would wish to be treated.

Indeed, I agree entirely with that. My original point was simply that “objectification,” as a means of capturing disrespect, is not a necessary word. It seems to me that everything “bad” about the “male gaze” that may exist is much more aptly captured by the ages-old concept of disrespect than by “objectification.” (It was meant to make disrespect something more “systemic”, i.e. as a decriptor for part of a system that leads inexorably to female oppression; but as such it begs the question.)

The very concept of the “male gaze” being bad or destructive or whatever is arrant nonsense. As the proverb says, “a cat may look at a king.” The whole “male gaze” idiocy is just the ancient concept of the “evil eye” dressed up in neofeminist clothes. 😦

If you entertain that
–gendered behavior is innate, and
–prostitutes are born,

then do you also entertain that
–East Africans are genetically faster sprinters, and
–west Africans are genetically faster marathoners
–Africans are genetically less intelligent than whites, and that
–Jews are genetically more intelligent than all the rest of us?

Recognizing that SOME behavior is innate, and that some other behavior may be innate, does not require believing that ALL psychological, physical and mental characteristics are innate, and certainly not those like intelligence which have been proven not to be. An open mind isn’t the same thing as a hole in one’s head.

Because fact isn’t a matter of belief; it it were neofeminists could make “social construction of gender” true just by believing in it. All the evidence of rigorous studies conducted over the past century demonstrate that there is no statistical correlation between distribution of intelligence and ethnic background. Functional differences (such as the well-known academic superiority of Asian students) are due to cultural emphasis on education rather than differences in native intelligence.

In some cases cultural construct is more powerful than biology. The secret to telling the difference is cross-cultural and cross-species studies. Does a behavior tend to be consistent across many cultures and even primate species? It’s probably biological. Does it vary widely between cultures and even regions? It’s probably cultural.

They lag academically, not intellectually; the two are not at all the same thing. The evidence indicates that Jewish and Asian children excel because their cultures strongly encourage academic achievement; children from other racial groups raised in Jewish or Asian families show the same achievements, and Asian children raised in white American families show no such achievement. The same goes in reverse for black children. It’s not an issue of genetics, but rather one of the child being encouraged to excel (as in Asian families), discouraged from doing so (as in poor black communities), or receiving mixed messages (as in modern white American culture).

A simple example: in America and Western Europe, we tend to think of women wearing more jewelry than men. A man wearing a lot of jewelry is seen as a bit effeminate, unless he’s very macho in other obvious ways (like Mr. T).

So is there a genetic predisposition, attached to the X chromosome, to wear a lot of jewelry? Men wear some but women, with two Xs, wear more? Well no. In some cultures, men wear a lot more jewelry than women do, often as a display of wealth or social rank (the two often go together).

We also tend to think of men as having penises and women as having vaginae. Even a neofeminist would hesitate to argue that this is due to culture.

OK, so I’ve used extreme and obvious examples, but there you go. I’m going to be out of state for several days, and so might not be able to follow until I get back.

Indeed. In India, only nose-rings and toe-rings were essentially feminine ornaments but westernization took care of that & now I can’t even wear two chains around my neck without people staring.

But incidentally, male & female jewellery have been different across all cultures, just like clothes. All the intricately made, jingly-jjingly-jangly stuff has always been ladies jewellery and men have had plainer ornaments, but they were in no way qualitatively inferior or quantitatively lesser. The basic difference being that women use ornaments as beauty enhancers of sorts while they are merely status symbols for the average man with the added bonus of making him look good. Women are just more into these things because they have different perspectives regarding them, and these perspectives are innate to their gender.

I don’t think Jews excelled in all cultures and times. I know of no evidence that they were any more intellectual than their neighbours in Ancient times– definitely not pre-Babylonian. If anything, they ranked well behind the Phoenicians and Egyptians early on. And even in Hellenistic times, I doubt they excelled any more than the Greeks.
In more modern times, yes, they have tended to perform near the top in most countries (not so sure about Indian Jews, though), but considering the fact that Jews are DEFINED as a distinct cultural group, moreso than a genetic one, especially when you include both Ashkenazim and Sephardim (as well as other distinct populations), one really must conclude that cultural factors are much more likely for their successes.

As for Africans, one must keep in mind that they tend to be oppressed to one degree or another in EVERY non-African country in which they live in significant numbers. But even so, in many countries they do better academically than American Indians (also horribly oppressed), and often better than some immigrant groups. Black Americans often perform better academically than White and Mestizo immigrants from countries in which the Whites and Mestizos outperform the Blacks found there. Which strongly indicates that such rankings are not due to genetic causes.

Africans achieved iron before Jews did. African kingdoms like Mali were organizing military actions of over a hundred thousand men before William the Bastard became William the Conqueror because of his “enormous army” (sixty thousand). Cities of the Swahili Coast were conducting overseas trade with China (the emperor of China was given a giraffe) before Europe’s Age of Exploration. At different times, the most extensive libraries in the world were located in Alexandria and Timbuktu.

Today, none of the nations of the African continent are considered world military powers, centers of sophistication, or economic powerhouses. But they were all those things in the past. It is unlikely that that Africans have changed genetically in that time.

You’re right on Alexandria. I have to think that some Africans had to be involved, but it’s easy to forget (and sometimes I do) that even Cleopatra (there was more than one, but I mean the one Elizabeth Taylor played) hadn’t a drop of Egyptian blood in her.

Here’s an interesting alternate history: after taking Egypt, Alexander doesn’t head for India but instead decides to expand deeper into Africa.

While I don’t disagree with anything you said here, but I do think it’s important, whenever discussing biological differences between the sexes, to keep in mind the importance of variation within the two sexes, as well as possible overlaps. I know that this point should be obvious, but there are far too many people who take any evidence of biological differences to mean that males and females must be treated as completely different, with no allowance for individual variance.
It should be clear to anyone that some sexual differences are much more distinct than others. Ladies with full beards are quite rare, for one obvious example. But other differences, such as height, have a much greater range of overlap.
It is my own belief that whatever behavioural differences between the sexes exist are nearly always going to be of the sort that vary considerably among individuals, and with a huge degree of overlap. You probably agree (at least partially), and you may think this is too obvious to mention, but I’ve noticed that people tend to miscontrue and heavily distort evidence of any biological differences, so I think these caveats always need to be emphasized.

Whorish Media

Maggie on Twitter

Boring but necessary legal stuff

All original content on this website (i.e. all of my columns, pages and anything else which I write myself) is protected under international copyright law as of the time it is posted; though you may link to it as you please or quote passages (as long as you attribute the quote to me), please do not reproduce whole columns without my express written permission. In other words, you have to say "pretty please with sugar on top" first, and then wait for me to say "okey-dokey".